• raza
    704
    You're conflating epistemology with ontology there, unless you're an idealist. Are you an idealist?numberjohnny5

    An actualist. An observer of what is obvious. No physical thing exists if it is not perceived.
  • raza
    704
    A human arm can be attached or detached from the rest of the human body. The arm itself hasn't changednumberjohnny5

    Only either immediately or if it has been kept on ice.

    Is a detached ear still an ear if it is re-attached surgically onto a leg (just to maintain blood supply to it)?

    My point is about the use terms used to represent what is actually occurring rather than merely symbolic language.

    An ear attached to a leg is no longer an ear. It has lost it's "ear" function.
  • raza
    704
    No... my fat ass is my own workHeiko

    I bet it's creation takes up most of your time.
  • numberjohnny5
    179
    Are you therefore saying "mind" refers to will?raza

    Yes, but not limited to will. We sometimes have automatic thoughts that we can just be aware of; or sense/perceive things without necessarily acting upon those experiences.
  • numberjohnny5
    179
    The entire body is in the same "location" to exist. Remove the head the body also dies and vice versa.raza

    I wasn't saying anything about death. My comment was to do with identity, i.e. a mind being identical to brain.
  • numberjohnny5
    179
    An actualist. An observer of what is obvious. No physical thing exists if it is not perceived.raza

    That's conflating epistemology with ontology. Do you understand? Knowledge of X does not determine or equate with actuality of X. By the way, you say "actualist", but that rather sounds like an idealist position: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html

    "Idealism is the metaphysical and epistemological doctrine that ideas or thoughts make up fundamental reality. Essentially, it is any philosophy which argues that the only thing actually knowable is consciousness (or the contents of consciousness), whereas we never can be sure that matter or anything in the outside world really exists. Thus, the only real things are mental entities, not physical things (which exist only in the sense that they are perceived)."
  • numberjohnny5
    179
    Only either immediately or if it has been kept on ice.

    Is a detached ear still an ear if it is re-attached surgically onto a leg (just to maintain blood supply to it)?

    My point is about the use terms used to represent what is actually occurring rather than merely symbolic language.

    An ear attached to a leg is no longer an ear. It has lost it's "ear" function.
    raza

    Sure, that's to do with the function of an ear. But functionality is just one criteria that people connote to different things. An arm can still be an arm even if its past functioning has stopped, because the criteria for being an arm to one might not involve or include arm functionality.
  • raza
    704
    Yes, but not limited to will. We sometimes have automatic thoughts that we can just be aware of; or sense/perceive things without necessarily acting upon those experiences.numberjohnny5

    What do you mean "act upon"? Surely a thought perceived is always "acted upon". The act could be a dismissive action.

    . "nonconscious brain states are involuntary brain processes that involve regulating breathing, hear rate, balance, sensory and motor functions, etc"

    Are arising thoughts therefore "nonconscious brain states" due to the fact they arise involuntarily?

    Thoughts arise involuntarily, do they not?
  • raza
    704
    I wasn't saying anything about death. My comment was to do with identity, i.e. a mind being identical to brainnumberjohnny5

    My point is mind/brain identical with body thereby one identifiable entity being "body-mind".
  • numberjohnny5
    179
    What do you mean "act upon"? Surely a thought perceived is always "acted upon". The act could be a dismissive action.raza

    For example, I am aware of the wind blowing on my face. I did not choose to notice that. I became aware of it in a passive sense. I can choose to act upon that sensation consequently, but that's not what I'm referring to here.

    Are arising thoughts therefore "nonconscious brain states" due to the fact they arise involuntarily?raza

    No, thoughts are mental/conscious only. Thoughts being involuntary is not identical to nonconscious activity/states.

    Thoughts arise involuntarily, do they not?raza

    Some do, yes. Some thoughts are voluntarily "produced".
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    No physical thing exists if it is not perceived.raza

    I wonder if you over-estimate your own importance in this? A thing exists only if you perceive it? [Yes, I know you meant any/all of us, not just you. :wink:] Are there no things that have human-independent existence, then? Or maybe I should ask if there are things that have perception-independent existence? :chin: Are you offering a QM perspective here, or something different? :chin:

    [I'm not offering my view here, just inquiring about yours. :up:]
  • raza
    704
    I wonder if you over-estimate your own importance in this?Pattern-chaser

    That appears to be a question, so no.

    I'll have to get back to you on your other inquiries. Inundated currently which I may not get through today.
  • raza
    704
    That's conflating epistemology with ontology. Do you understand? Knowledge of X does not determine or equate with actuality of X. By the way, you say "actualist", but that rather sounds like an idealist positionnumberjohnny5

    Trying to find a label or box for myself is not something which interests me.

    My words are my words.
  • raza
    704
    Sure, that's to do with the function of an ear. But functionality is just one criteria that people connote to different things. An arm can still be an arm even if its past functioning has stopped, because the criteria for being an arm to one might not involve or include arm functionality.numberjohnny5

    Which refers to my point about what is actually occurring. Labels for parts is not a good reference for what is actually occurring.

    "I am sitting at my pc" refers to a whole lot of parts which therefore implies a specific identity.

    My point is that that identity, this "I, is not what it is in actuality.

    One cannot be a thing other than what is occurring.
  • numberjohnny5
    179
    Trying to find a label or box for myself is not something which interests me.

    My words are my words.
    raza

    Well, in order to communicate it's important to find some common ground. Communication can be tricky in the first place. Otherwise, you may as well just argue with yourself. Anyway, you describing yourself as an "actualist" is labelling yourself. It's actually unavoidable to not label or organise experience. We need to do it to survive. But we can be aware that we're doing it, and realise that labels aren't the thing that they're labelling.
  • numberjohnny5
    179
    My point is that that identity, this "I, is not what it is in actuality.raza

    I certainly don't agree with that.

    One cannot be a thing other than what is occurring.raza

    One cannot not be a thing occurring as a thing occurring.
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    I'll have to get back to you on your other inquiries.raza

    I look forward to it. :smile:

    One cannot be a thing other than what is occurring.raza

    This looks interesting, but I can't quite see what you're getting at. Care to expand?
  • raza
    704
    For example, I am aware of the wind blowing on my face. I did not choose to notice that. I became aware of it in a passive sense. I can choose to act upon that sensation consequently, but that's not what I'm referring to here.numberjohnny5

    All you have done here is used a category as a point on a spectrum. "Passive" is merely a point on a spectrum, the entire spectrum being "action".

    "I did not choose to notice that. I became aware of it in a passive sense"

    That's right. No choosing or no doing. Just as you do not beat your heart or breathing your lungs.

    "Nonconscious brain states are involuntary brain processes that involve regulating breathing, hear rate, balance, sensory and motor functions, etc"

    What is interesting is that people, maybe you included, identify themselves as a thinker of thoughts.

    However, As we have established, thoughts are involuntary (they merely arise, and then "actively" heard if in a "passive" way - passively noticed, or they generate a more grossly physical act, or are dismissed, or generate another thought).
  • raza
    704
    We need to do it to survive. But we can be aware that we're doing it, and realise that labels aren't the thing that they're labelling.numberjohnny5

    What is it, though, that is surviving?

    All these survival applications will still be involuntary because it will involve acts that were generated by thoughts which involuntarily arose.

    There is the experience that could be labelled "survival".
  • raza
    704
    One cannot not be a thing occurring as a thing occurringnumberjohnny5

    My argument is that one is what is occurring.

    It is impossible to be one without what is occurring and it is impossible for there to be any occurrence without one.
  • raza
    704
    This looks interesting, but I can't quite see what you're getting at. Care to expand?Pattern-chaser

    You cannot be a thing separate from your experience. You can only be whatever the experience is.

    You identity is whatever is occurring. Whatever arises in consciousness is you.
  • Heiko
    519
    I bet it's creation takes up most of your time.raza
    Now the discussion is reaching an appropriate level. Not being able to distinguish yourself from the rest of the world is classified as a serious mental disease. Maybe you should see a doctor.
    If you can do so and it is just your theory that says you couldn't, there must be something wrong with your theory.
    Furthermore if it seems all in all that the mind could not exist without body (Mind=>Body) and the body could not exist without mind (Body=>Mind), then on can conclude that mind and body are the same (Mind<=>Body). Again there is me and there is my chair.
  • raza
    704
    Now the discussion is reaching an appropriate level.Heiko

    Yes. Your level. I replied in kind once you revealed your attitude.

    Maybe you should see a doctor.Heiko

    That is the end of our conversation.
  • jorndoe
    3.6k
    An observer of what is obvious. No physical thing exists if it is not perceived.raza

    A subjective idealist (and solipsist), then. :meh:
    Presumably you regularly experience other folks' bodies and gesturing and such?
    Not their self-awarenesses, though.

    Red marks conundrum:

    l1cp5f6wxo44455d.jpg

    That's conflating epistemology with ontology.numberjohnny5

    Yep (y)
  • raza
    704
    Oh. You found a convenient box to place me into. I don’t subscribe.

    You don’t have my permission so I’m not in that box. Feel free to delude yourself with your array of various boxes to play with.

    Doing so, as you have, is merely a reaction from a sense of insecurity. A condition which manifests as wanting to produce order and control.
  • Heiko
    519
    That is the end of our conversation.raza
    Know what is yours.
  • numberjohnny5
    179
    All you have done here is used a category as a point on a spectrum. "Passive" is merely a point on a spectrum, the entire spectrum being "action".raza

    My point was that being aware of something is not necessarily a voluntary act.

    What is interesting is that people, maybe you included, identify themselves as a thinker of thoughts.

    However, As we have established, thoughts are involuntary
    raza

    Just to clarify, I said some thoughts are involuntary, not all.

    What is it, though, that is surviving?raza

    A biological organism/entity, to put it broadly.

    All these survival applications will still be involuntary because it will involve acts that were generated by thoughts which involuntarily arose.raza

    Some "applications" are involuntary, and some are voluntary.

    My argument is that one is what is occurring.

    It is impossible to be one without what is occurring and it is impossible for there to be any occurrence without one.
    raza

    I'm not sure I understand. I'd put it like this: to be or to exist is to "occur" or be to undergoing processes.
  • raza
    704


    1. So do "you", as the thinker, voluntarily generate a thought?

    2. If so, how and why do you do this?

    Do "you", as the thinker, generate an involuntary thought?

    3. If so, how and why?

    4. If not, what DOES generate an involuntary thought within "you", the thinker?

    If "you" the thinker does NOT generate an involuntary thought, does it still not remain that an involuntary thought is still being regarded as a "thought"?

    If an "involuntary thought" is thereby a result of thinking then what or who is the thinker of it?

    Is the thinker of an "involuntary thought" you (the "thinker" of thoughts)?
  • raza
    704
    (repeat to include numbers for last three)

    5. If "you" the thinker does NOT generate an involuntary thought, does it still not remain that an involuntary thought is still being regarded as a "thought"?

    6. If an "involuntary thought" is thereby a result of thinking then what or who is the thinker of it?

    7. Is the thinker of an "involuntary thought" you (the "thinker" of thoughts)?
  • raza
    704
    Personally I think that all thinking is involuntary - that they are induced within cause and effect.

    I think the idea of involuntary vs voluntary arises because some thoughts seem to be far more spontaneous - as if from nowhere, and not, therefore, necessarily following a remembered thread.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.